Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2022-05-24
17:23:32 dansmith osc logic is: "if new_version and image_ref==server.image_ref and args.yes_really: then do_it"
17:23:55 dansmith maybe we don't already have the server there in osc I guess, but we do validations like that in other places right?
17:24:19 dansmith sorry, that's not the right logic, let me try again:
17:24:48 dansmith if image_ref==server.image_ref and new_version: if not args.yes_really: explode with warning
17:25:05 dansmith only require the flag if new version and the image is not changing
17:25:06 sean-k-mooney or just check for new version
17:25:09 whoami-rajat but if someone directly curls the API (not from client), don't we require the validation of additional parameter?
17:25:24 dansmith could do that, but then everyone always has to do that, and the image not changing is so niche
17:25:31 dansmith whoami-rajat: right
17:25:38 sean-k-mooney whoami-rajat: i really dont think that heat should have to do differnt thigns for bfv or not
17:26:00 dansmith sean-k-mooney: and also, heat had better know the impact of the new microversion if they opt into it
17:26:11 sean-k-mooney ya
17:26:37 sean-k-mooney this comes back to not blindly using latest
17:26:44 dansmith heh
17:27:15 dansmith people already blindly paste the shell code from the first answer on stackexchange into a root terminal,
17:27:26 dansmith we're pretty well sunk on making them carefully consider microversions :)
17:27:26 sean-k-mooney so from a tempest point of view we would want test for the new and old microverion too right
17:27:32 dansmith yes
17:28:28 sean-k-mooney am so do you want to summerise what you propsoe we do
17:29:46 sean-k-mooney new micorversion -> always reimage, old -> preseve data for bfv reimage for not bfv, evac-> alwasy preserve data if on share starge regardless of micoversion(no change)
17:29:46 dansmith I don't "want" to, but I will
17:30:33 whoami-rajat since it was mentioned, tempest test for new behavior https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/831018
17:30:41 whoami-rajat still in progress though
17:32:33 bauzas folks, btw. I forgot to remember that I'll off from tonight until Monday
17:32:34 bauzas thanks
17:34:53 dansmith sean-k-mooney: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/840155
17:36:08 sean-k-mooney dansmith: ack just reading it that sounds good to me
17:36:15 dansmith cool
17:36:19 sean-k-mooney whoami-rajat: reading the tempest test its doing some thing i think shoudl not be in the test
17:36:34 sean-k-mooney and its not valdiating eveythign i think ti shoudl be validating
17:36:54 dansmith sean-k-mooney: which is what?
17:37:24 dansmith sean-k-mooney: I added the bit to create and file and assert that it's gone after the rebuild, because initially we were supposed to be rebuild and we weren't -- the file was still present after the rebuild
17:37:27 dansmith not sure if that is resolved now
17:37:36 sean-k-mooney dansmith: the old micoversion behavior
17:37:44 dansmith ah for sure
17:37:49 sean-k-mooney also https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/831018/12/tempest/api/compute/servers/test_server_actions.py#917=
17:37:59 whoami-rajat sean-k-mooney, ack, happy to have feedback on the test
17:38:02 sean-k-mooney i dont think adding a cleanup that rebuild to the old image is a good idea
17:38:15 sean-k-mooney it just add another failure mode in the test cleanup
17:38:16 dansmith yeah, not sure what that's about
17:38:35 dansmith comment says "not needed"
17:38:52 whoami-rajat dansmith, I did some changes in the nova code so the errors from logs are gone but it still somehow is not able to do it, I tested manually and the file never exists after the rebuild but somehow in this test, it stays there
17:39:13 whoami-rajat I'm working on a new job with two different images and will take input from there to fix it
17:39:25 dansmith whoami-rajat: ack, well, glad to have that assertion in there then :)
17:39:35 dansmith it was not rebuilding when I tried locally - the file was still present
17:40:11 whoami-rajat sean-k-mooney, ack, yeah that i added from the original rebuild test, can remove that part
17:40:24 whoami-rajat i think it was for an instance that is shared so reverted back to original image
17:40:45 whoami-rajat dansmith, if you try with latest code, it should work, at least it works for me and i tried 3-4 times
17:40:55 dansmith whoami-rajat: but not in the gate right?
17:40:59 whoami-rajat from nova side (in-use) and also from cinder side (available volume)
17:41:07 whoami-rajat yep, not in gate
17:41:12 dansmith okay
17:42:28 whoami-rajat thanks sean-k-mooney and dansmith for your feedback, it's a pity that this parameter travels down from api->conductor->compute layer and would require plenty of rework in a cycle where I've less bandwidth
17:42:37 whoami-rajat but i agree with the concerns and issues, so i will try to get it done
17:42:48 dansmith whoami-rajat: we still have to have the parameter on the rpc side
17:42:58 dansmith so that's not a waste :)
17:43:04 whoami-rajat dansmith, i don't understand
17:43:12 whoami-rajat i thought it's not passed at all to the API?
17:43:39 dansmith whoami-rajat: only the api knows whether the client requested the old or new behavior, so you still have to communicate that down to the compute worker
17:45:07 whoami-rajat dansmith, do you mean if microversion >=2.91 then use the ``reimage_boot_volume`` parameter for telling it to conductor and compute ?
17:45:23 dansmith yes
17:45:48 whoami-rajat oh, that reduces huge amount of work then
17:46:30 whoami-rajat thanks for that
17:48:26 sean-k-mooney whoami-rajat: it will be based on the microversion used
17:48:26 sean-k-mooney whoami-rajat: but the way that paramter is set is not based on a new api parmater
17:48:26 sean-k-mooney so the conductor/compute chagne will still be used
17:48:26 sean-k-mooney with the old one it will be false
17:48:26 sean-k-mooney with the new microverion the partmer at teh rpc level wil always be true
17:48:40 dansmith right
17:48:43 whoami-rajat sean-k-mooney[m], yes
17:49:48 sean-k-mooney oh i had an irc diconnect
17:50:22 sean-k-mooney looking at my matix client i see i did not recive a bunch fo messages
17:51:05 sean-k-mooney well 2 or 3 messages i guess
17:51:33 sean-k-mooney anyway whoami-rajat are you ok to update the spec and i can re review
17:52:10 whoami-rajat <whoami-rajat> sean-k-mooney[m], yes
17:52:10 whoami-rajat <dansmith> right
17:52:10 whoami-rajat * sean-k-mooney has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
17:52:10 whoami-rajat <sean-k-mooney> whoami-rajat: it will be based on the microversion used
17:52:10 sean-k-mooney im going to call it a day however so ill review tomorrow
17:52:10 whoami-rajat <sean-k-mooney> whoami-rajat: but the way that paramter is set is not based on a new api parmater
17:52:17 whoami-rajat sean-k-mooney, just for reference ^
17:52:23 whoami-rajat sean-k-mooney, sure, will do that
17:52:30 dansmith thanks whoami-rajat !
17:53:18 whoami-rajat thanks dansmith and other nova folks for this discussion, I will sign out now since it's quite late my time. have a good day :)
18:37:11 opendevreview Merged openstack/placement stable/wallaby: Use 'functional-without-sample-db-tests' tox env for placement nova job https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/840718
19:33:01 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova stable/victoria: Define new functional test tox env for placement gate to run https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/840765
19:43:44 opendevreview Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova stable/victoria: DNM: Testing https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/843182 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/843188
20:10:52 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova stable/wallaby: DNM: Testing live migration with local attach https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/843146
21:32:02 opendevreview Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova stable/wallaby: DNM: Testing live migration with local attach https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/843146
23:21:42 opendevreview Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova stable/ussuri: DNM: Testing stable/ussuri with tempest fix for constraints mismatch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/843046
23:37:18 opendevreview Miguel Lavalle proposed openstack/os-vif master: Delete trunk bridges to avoid race with Neutron https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/841499
#openstack-nova - 2022-05-25
03:25:13 opendevreview Andrew Bogott proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: add the purge_rbd_snaps_on_delete config option https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/843228
03:35:05 opendevreview Andrew Bogott proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: add the purge_rbd_snaps_on_delete config option https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/843228
04:55:18 opendevreview Merged openstack/nova master: libvirt: Add a workaround to skip compareCPU() on destination https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/838926
09:01:23 gibi stephenfin: when you are around, can we discuss the config option open questions in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/791047 ?
09:09:56 stephenfin gibi: Sure, on the review?
09:10:27 gibi we can talk here :)
09:10:33 gibi that is probably quicker
09:10:41 gibi so my first question is
09:11:03 gibi what is the reason behind you suggest no to rename the whitelist but add a totally new conf option?

Earlier   Later